How to win friends and influence people

[DeanV]

I do agree that people need to stop saying that those opposed to more early season CDR are anti-science.  Nothing could possibly be further from the truth.  I do not see any social arguments being used by those opposed to further changes to the seasons.  The only social reasons for changing regulations come from the side of those in favor of early season CDR.  The NRC is doing a great job of trying to balance the social side of more opportunity (accomplished with immediate release during early season) and those the see science on the side of being cautious.

Most states have limitations on the pre-spawn and spawn in the northern US and all of them base the reasons on science.

[djkimmel]

I would read a lot of comments with more interest if I didn't know for a fact that a major reason we can't get a longer bass tournament season is simply because some people don't like bass tournaments. It is not science. It is bias and prejudice. I do NOT want my resources managed by popularity contest or especially by bias and prejudice. If I truly believed some of these people, especially biologists truly had scientific reasons for denying us more opportunity I would also listen more and care more but the truth is I've been dealing with this for over 30 years and I'm sick and tired of the bias and prejudice disguised, hidden and pretended as 'science.'

I realize some people may think I'm talking about them but if I didn't mention your name then maybe I wasn't talking about YOU. Afterall, only you know if you really believe there is science that shows we have to be concerned, OR you just don't like bass tournaments fishing your fish more of the year (and I can't read your mind, I can only guess) and believe me for one thing for sure, if you're one of the people who is biased and prejudiced against bass tournaments you ARE my enemy (and not a very nice person).

To the rest of you, one way or another I plan on helping get you April and May bass tournaments that you want because you deserve the SAME opportunity to fish your way as anyone else and I KNOW the science is, and has been on our side. If you believe you have studies that PROVE otherwise you better share the exact study name and authors to PROVE it because I'm calling your bluff, and always will because I know the ONLY 'scientists' that you have to go by are probably Phillip and his buddies in Illinois, and I know what the real bass biology experts say about their long-winded, didn't prove anything, but we should be worried about this or this claims they come out with in their studies. Meanwhile, most everyone else in science laughs at our situation because they know even MICHIGAN studies have supported the lack of need for things like closed seasons and unnecessary limits on the way anglers fish for bass.

[djkimmel]

I do agree that people need to stop saying that those opposed to more early season CDR are anti-science.  Nothing could possibly be further from the truth.  I do not see any social arguments being used by those opposed to further changes to the seasons.  The only social reasons for changing regulations come from the side of those in favor of early season CDR.  The NRC is doing a great job of trying to balance the social side of more opportunity (accomplished with immediate release during early season) and those the see science on the side of being cautious.

Most states have limitations on the pre-spawn and spawn in the northern US and all of them base the reasons on science.

This is simply not true and shows how you assume many things without actually studying them or proving them. You're confusing real science with 'social science' what people who don't know what the heck they're talking about scientifically think and believe...

Wisconsin - has a closed bass season but their season opens BEFORE their spawn. They claim the reason they don't open earlier is because not enough bass anglers want it. SOCIAL, not science.

Minnesota - has a closed bass season but their season opens BEFORE AND DURING their spawn. They also have language right on their website that speaks about the lack of scientific necessity for protecting the bass spawn. I quote it often because I consider them a Northern state similar to Michigan and how could it be unnecessary to protect the spawn in Minnesota but 'necessary' in Michigan? Yeah, right... They claim the reason they don't open earlier is because not enough bass anglers want it. They also made their smallmouth bass CIR only after labor day because of one study on wintering river bass that didn't even translate to their other populations but again because not enough anglers claimed they wanted it different - SOCIAL, not science.

Illinois - you can bass fish all year on their lakes. They recently limited their spring bass fishing to catch-and-release on streams thanks to questionable a weak results from Phillip (of course - the poster child for spring bass fishing fear).

Indiana - you can fish ALL year on all their waters including harvest ALL year meaning bass tournaments ALL year. Idiots argue that their bass are completely different than our bass which is utter bs. They actually have the biggest federation, rabid bass tournament following and a tiny fraction of the water we have yet they allow bass tournaments all year AND they have plenty of waters that still produce good catches. Their last 2 studies showed their bass are doing as good or better than ever despite year-round harvest fishing season.

Ohio - you can bass fish all year with the only spawn 'protection' being a 6 week catch and release season on Lake Erie that was caused by anglers demanding the ODNR stop people from keeping spawning bass (SOCIAL) and because the ODNR thought for once there was too much fishing pressure on bass in their part of Lake Erie due to charters and people keeping too many bass, not bass tournaments. Bass tournaments just lost out because of this - a quote directly from an ODNR biologist.

Pennsylvania - allows you to bass fish but says you can't purposefully fish for a bass on a bed during their spring season because they feel some anglers didn't like other angler spawnfishing.

New York - allows you to bass fish during the spawn and even have some big bass bass tournaments on Lake Erie in the spring because they have no science showing that water can't handle it. In fact, their most recent study shows their bass are doing as good or better despite again allowing more and more spring bass fishing. They acknowledge that it is also some anglers not wanting other angler spawnfishing that has kept them from expanding opportunity more.

Maine - allows you to fish half their state during the bass spawn. The other half (Northern) is limited to no fishing because they realized the only way to protect and limit fishing's effect on TROUT was to not allow ANY fishing on those waters.

Vermont - one of the only states that still thinks protecting the bass spawn may be necessary though again, they are mainly going by the reasoning that some anglers don't want other anglers to do it. They also allow spring fishing on Champlain to more closely match New York as their one exception.

New Hampshire - You can bass fish all year though they have a May 15 to June 15 CIR artificial lures and flies only - why because enough anglers said they wanted limits... For much of the year they have no size limit on bass...

Canada Provinces are also among the group who don't allow some spring bass fishing because some anglers don't want other anglers to do it though Ontario added an extra week of spring bass fishing recently to some regions without much fanfare partly because Marc Ridgway and other scientists in his camp are chanfing their tune too about spring bass fishing closures being scientifically necessary. They are finding that climate change is making bass more prolific and able to deal with more fishing opportunity. Ridgway now says that he was wrong about Lake Erie too, that it is actually doing fine scientifically.

It's going to always be easy for anxious, and/or uncooperative DNR's to find enough anglers who are afraid of change and/or don't want change to drown out the smaller number of bass tournament anglers if they want to because we are an unpopular minority in the North. That is not science.

I'm done tip-toeing around this social nonsense and going to force real, sound science to be used or at least they have to admit they are only denying anglers opportunity because of other anglers like they did when they banned chumming on trout streams because some anglers mainly on only 3 rivers didn't like it... The NRC should not be picking sides. They should be going by sound science and letting THAT win each time.

There are ZERO studies that show bass fishing during pre-spawn needs to be limited or closed. As there are no studies that show the bass spawn needs to be closed or even catch-and-release only. The most recent study the MDNR did on Lake St. Clair even states there was no scientific reason Lake St. Clair needed a later opener just that anglers wanted it... Again that's social not science and I'm tired of being limited by what some people think, or like (or don't like).

If you think you have studies you better post them up and I can probably tell you what the study really shows because I'm sure I've read it AND talked to the biologists that did the study...

[djkimmel]

As far as value of fisheries, the salmon fishery pales in comparison to the value to Michigan of the bass fishery. The bass fishery is much bigger - it's huge. It's ridiculous to try to justify putting more money into the salmon fishery based on its value. If 70% of the anglers who buy licenses are saying they are bass anglers then bass fishing should get 70% of the license revenue to be fair. That's simple for anyone to understand who has half a brain.

As far as the excise and other user fees bass fishing provides a huge chunk of that too. There are more bass anglers fishing in Michigan than any other type except panfish (also not salmon) and bass anglers fish more angler-days by far than any other type of fishing according to the USFWS census. Angler-day average expenses for bass fishing is almost $400 Million dollars. Bass boats have their own category in the census. Salmon boats do not...

Michigan can't afford to lose any natural resources opportunity but to say one deserves more than another without doing a real comparison of real numbers is weak. Michigan definitely can't afford to lose it's bass fishery or take it for granted as they've done for decades (and admit it). One major bass tournament can pump more economic impact into Michigan than a whole lot of salmon fishing and it has been shown that bass fishing is bringing more out of state anglers now than other kinds of fishing too partly due to all of the attention brought in by bass tournaments and bass fishing shows.

An April - May bass tournament season could be worth tens of millions of extra dollars to Michigan's natural resource economy boosting local economies that desperately need a boost at that time of year, and would also bring back most of the anglers who LEAVE Michigan each year to go fish bass tournaments in Indiana. It's ridiculous that with our abundant resources that we are so selfish and stingy with them that we drive people to pile in on Indiana's limited resources that already have plenty of fishing going on on them.

Our waters can handle more opportunity. I know that. Have zero doubt and the only way we can prove it is to use adaptive management to learn by doing. Because our detractors will always be there, and the MDNR won't give bass the attention it deserves by doing our own study. Of course it is ridiculous to do another 10 year study when others have already been done and plenty of surrounding states allow bass fishing all year or through the entire spawn already. They still have bass. Don't they.

[robhj]

Dan, I've stated several times that I applaud your efforts and am grateful for the opportunity that I can fish for bass year round. I just happen to disagree with your assertion that the decision against CDR was only based on opinion/emotion. I also disagree with your statement that "if 70% of the anglers who buy licenses are saying they are bass anglers then bass fishing should get 70% of the license revenue to be fair." Sounds pretty elitist to me, but perhaps you were being sarcastic and I just didn't pick up on that. Our MIDNR should continue to manage our natural resources for the greatest good, for the greatest number, for as long as possible. I know how much work you have done Dan and I respect that, but I also respect that two people can look at the exact same study/studies and have different opinions. From one avid bass angler to another, keep fighting the good fight and thanks again for this website and what you've done for bass fishing in Michigan.

[djkimmel]

I'm not being sarcastic about anything. Bass and panfish anglers, especially inland anglers, have not gotten their fair share of the resources for many, many years and that needs to stop. The MDNR even admits they have been unfair to inland, warmwater anglers. I'm pretty tired when I hear other anglers say we should pay for our own study. Talk about elitist... and nonsense. We deserve the resources needed to study possible opportunities and requests from anglers. And if they refuse to do the study needed that can't be an excuse to say we can't do anything towards more opportunity.

As far as reading studies, when I read them I guess a main difference between me and other people is I have access to known long-time bass biology experts who are advising me on what the studies mean and don't mean... I'm pretty darn confident that I disagreeessments are right because they are the same assessments of the real bass experts I have access to, some of whom are well known nationally as bass biology experts. That's a pretty key difference.

People can disagree with me all they want on some of these things but their is a big difference between OPINION and KNOWLEDGE. Some of us want REAL sound science to rule, not the opinion of a bunch of anglers and people who are afraid to make tough calls based on real science. I had real recognized bass biology experts testify. The other side had a TV fisherman, an opinion columnist for a newspaper who claimed one study meant something when the study just said something MIGHT happen in the future, and a few fisheries biologists who's specialties are definitely not bass. They have zero peer-reviewed bass papers.

[DeanV]

I will paste a portion of what i posted here before on seasonal regulations taken from the websites of the states  and regions most similar to ours:

"IL, WI, PA, MN, NY, VT, NH, Ontario, protect bass during spawn.  Some include protection until late and very end of June.  Smallmouth are protected in particular.  Ontario is included since they have lakes at same latitude as Michigan lakes. Ontario also has a size limit of 13.8" from December 1 through June 30.  They are a prime example of new regulations based on the best science available.

OH has no seasons, just size limits.  They only recently added a size limit period.  Due to small size and low numbers of bass they went to a 12" minimum.

IN, MA, CT has no season.

Maine: No season, 10" minimum, only 1 over 14" with 2 fish limit"

I include catch and immediate release during the spawn as a form of protecting bass.  I only consider allowing catch and keep or catch and delayed release during the spawn as not protecting bass.

I stand by my interpretation of the research that protecting the bass during the spawn from harvest or delayed release is important, especially for SMALLMOUTH bass.  Largemouth bass do not appear to be as sensitive to angling pressure during the spawn.  The research I have read points in this direction.

I base this only on the fact that I have read every major research paper and many minor papers on bass spawning ecology that was conducted prior to 2000 and have purchased and read through related studies from the following books to keep me up to date:

Black Bass: Ecology Conservation and Management
Black Bass Diversity: Multidisciplinary Science for Conservation
Centrarchid Fishes: Diversity, Biology, and  Conservation

I am firmly on the side that the direction you would like to see MI go is not in the best interest of the fishery in the long term.  We do have fantastic resources in MI, but I think they need wise, scientific based management.

I appreciate your passion for MI bass fishing.  We definitely do need good advocates for angling and bass.  I completely agree that bass fishing is a very valuable fishery to the state of MI.  I would think it would exceed the value of the Great Lakes as well.  I firmly  believe that a self-sustaining bass fishery is critically important.  We do not want any regulations changes that would impact the self-sufficiency of bass populations.  I also agree that the state should be able to devote more money to bass studies, habitat improvement, should watch how lakes are treated for weeds, etc.  I would much rather see the state spend money on native populations and habitat restoration.

With all of the good colleges we have in MI with excellent fisheries programs a little grant money (at least, little relative to the large amounts spent on salmonids) should fund some excellent long term studies.  But, it will take long term studies.  There is no way around that if you do not want to use the results of other in-depth studies that were done on lakes similar to our northern smallmouth gems.

[Mojo]

Hellooooo, Dan, the guy winning friends and commanding people ? Er, a.... Influencing? I thought it was good to let this conversation roll. The Dude was dead nuts on, a lot of folk were smart and plain - spoken. Now.... Here is the monster piece that holds MI in check: Canada. I've seen the MDNR be at more open to changes inland, but are not moving far off of Canada's bass spawn position. Canada has 2/3 the water and I bet there is huge , even ingrained pressure to have MI match their season.

Now I know the seasons don't quite line up, but the punchline is: if Canada suddenly dropped their closed season, Mi would follow inside a year......

Just a thought and still trying to answer your original post and topic.

[djkimmel]

I doubt it will work that way. Ontario will only follow Michigan when they believe enough anglers want it. More anglers want it there too then they give credit to. Apparently to they don't get on the messages boards that the anglers are demanding spring bass fishing there too.

The MDNR Fisheries Chief claims our bass are so different WE can't go by what other states do anyways. That didn't stop the NRC from quoting only one study in their decision to block CDR and that was a study from Illinois, which last I checked, is not in Michigan...

There is no movement to match Ontario's bass season on St. Clair. That wouldn't match any science especially considering the last bass study the MDNR did on St. Clair stated the present later opener is not scientific but there because it's what they claim anglers want. Once again not sound science but social limitations on other anglers who want more fishing opportunity.

[DeanV]

Dan, the studies out of IL are done with Mark Ridgeway in Canada on similar latitudes with our northern lakes,  similar lake type as well.  And, those are the studies Ontario bases its regulations on.   Mark Ridgeway is not part of the IL group at the IL Natural History survey / Univ. of IL. Phillip and him do work together on projects but completely separate organizations. 

[djkimmel]

The study that was quoted was not done on similar lakes - it was done by Phillip. It was done on Illinois waters. Most of Phillip's studies are done on Illinois ponds and streams. All not in Michigan last I looked...

The past few years Mark Ridgway and company has changed his tune on spawning bass anyway. You should probably read his latest stuff to find out why. Might help you understand better.

The only people left on the weird side now are Phillip and his buddies trying to prove 'how bad' catch-and-release fishing really is... I guess he wants us to stop fishing. Of course, then we don't really need him doing research, and there wouldn't be money for a lot of them to do research if we quit fishing. Genius...

[DeanV]

I would love to find some more Ridgway stuff.  Honestly, his research is the most thorough and ahead of the curve of anyone else.  His lake was similar to Burt, Mullet, etc type of lakes in size, latitude, and trophic state.  I will need to see if I can access stuff published in the last little while that differed from the previous 20 years. His stuff is what Ontario based their regulations on.  It would have been quite a change since everything of his was pointing in the direction of angling being harmful in pre-spawn, even late winter, and spawn for smallies.

Here is the abstract from a 2011 paper from Mr. Ridgway, which the most recent article I could find related to the topic at hand:

We used an individual-based model of dynamics of smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu to examine the effect of angling for nesting males on the abundance of age-0 smallmouth bass. Variation in the daily probability of capture, opening date of angling, and probability of a male successfully returning to guard his brood, as well as a contrast between catch-and-keep versus catch-and-release policies were examined. Male body size and the preference of anglers for fish of different size were varied as a demonstration of the complex interactions between the variability in the reproductive ecology of a fish, angler preference, and a fixed management regulation. We found that the abundance of age-0 smallmouth bass decreased as the daily probability of capturing a nesting male increased in both catch-and-keep and catch-and-release policies. Opening dates during the nesting season, when males were guarding broods, also decreased the abundance of age-0 fish. This decrease was dramatic when the opening date occurred early in the parental care period relative to late in the period. Stress resulting from handling time for catch-and-release can have a significant impact on the abundance of age-0 fish because nesting males may abandon guarding behavior. The simulations indicate that closed fishing seasons during the parental care period, particularly during the early stages of parental care, may be a viable management option in areas where anglers target nesting males.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8675%281997%29017%3C0568%3APTEOAF%3E2.3.CO%3B2

[djkimmel]

Again, irrelevant to the above discussion really because the only study used in the NRC action was one from David Phillip done on Illinois bass.

And Ridgway and his other partners in Ontario have changed his tune in recent writings. You are behind the times with even a 2011 paper since he has found out more since then about the changes in bass behavior possibly due to climate warming they surmise.

Maybe that is why Ontario quietly added a whole week to the front end of their bass season in his region without fanfare. Ontario has made it clear to me in talking to them directly that this is being driven mostly by their perception of what bass anglers want not sound science.

They also have not addressed the issue of the need of protecting the bass spawn or not. All on of their most recent comments was is that bass are still spawning around the same time... whatever that is supposed to mean.

You are overwhelmingly in the minority when you claim that many agencies think the bass spawn needs to be protected and I almost think you're joking when you have now started throwing in prespawn and winter season protection. The vast majority of states obviously do NOT think the bass spawn, or prespawn or winter bass need 'protection' beyond size and creel limits, particularly knowing most bass angler already voluntarily release the majority of their bass whether they could keep them or not making even those regulations admittedly minimally effective.

That is all based on the vast body of bass studies from ALL sources (not just the few you like) INCLUDING Michigan bass studies that show these limits are primarily social not scientific.

[djkimmel]

You should be talking to bass biologists who actually have published bass papers that have been peer reviewed and accepted by the majority of biologists but I suspect you never will because you like Phillip and older Ridgway studies too much. Or course, the epitome of poor decision-making is limiting your sources to only those that already serve your preconceived notions... which is not how some of us want these important decisions made because that is not sound science.

[DeanV]

Dan, I hope you are right.  I really hope that we can fish for bass at anytime and as long as we release them they will find way back to the nest site and have successful broods.  I really hope that tournaments or other forms of angling pressure during the spawn cannot have an impact on bass populations in a negative manner.  I hope you are right.

As someone with a degree in this field that devoted much time to this exact area of study, I have come to question the wisdom of your view.  Originally, I would have supported your stance, but my understanding of bass behavior and ecology currently does not let me support that stance anymore.  This is not from reading a one-sided collection of articles, but from readying everything and talking first hand with leading researchers in the field.  Who knows, maybe I will find more information that will allow me to change my mind again.

[spinnerbation]

I have been watching this thread from the beginning and I'd like to add my $0.02.

First off, what I have to say is hearsay as I have no actual studies to quote. That being said, the information came from a few couple well respected individuals in fisheries biology community within Ontario. And they claim that their arguments were based on existing studies. From whom and where these studies are from they did not specify (maybe Dan can quote the study / studies they were referring to?). So take this for what it's worth...

In Ontario there is a split opinion on having an open early C&R season during the spawn (much less open all year for C&R or even C&K). And in a recent discussion I was following, the argument against open C&R was due to 95% of the damage being done while angling next guarding males even if released immediately.

Spawned out females were no issue nor were pre-spawn females. It's once the eggs are laid and hatched that was the concern while the males guarded. The study apparently shows that during even the short time you hook the male, play them to the boat then release back into the water, 95% of the eggs or fry will have already been predated on by gobies, perch pan fish etc.

If the study shows this then so be it. Common sense suggests the likelihood of this anyways. BUT, my argument is that all this study shows is that during that moment, that nest is raided and a good chunk of that pairs spawn is lost for that season. However it does NOT prove that over time this negatively affects the longevity and quality of future year classes.

I argue this point because there is 1 fundamental element in all this that much of the scientific community is ignoring. And that is the factor of NON BASS Anglers who are, and have been legally targeting other fish during the Bass Spawn since before my grandpappy was born.

So the obvious question I ask is (assuming we aren't so naive to believe that Bass are not being inadvertently caught by Non Bass Anglers during that time) why hasn't generations of cumulative Springtime Angling for other species disrupted or negatively affected the Spawn while they were legally angling other species?

I'm not pointing a finger of blame, and this is not a theory, only a hypothesis as I have not done any kind of study to prove this hypothesis. I am simply asking a question that I think to the best of my knowledge hasn't been specifically addressed.

Or rather, maybe the real question that needs to be asked is does Angling of ANY kind provide more of a negative effect on Bass Populations than the Macro stresses on them (Climate change, Musky Predation, Baitfish Populations etc) which we can't control for the most part?

Because here is the thing that bothers me about this. I am much like Dan in that I like to see facts and not assumptions. And if we sit idly by and allow for changes to Bass regulations based on opinions and assumptions rather than science, this will likely open the door for ALL regulations to come under the same type of scrutiny and mismanagement.

Slowly over time we may see an erosion of our rights and privileges due to Political Agendas rather than Proper Science based Management. And that is the beginning of the end my friends.

The last point I want to touch on is this. Let's say worst case scenario and the lobbyists win. And we have many rights and privileges taken from us. This could pose a threat to not only our rights, but to our fish and wildlife as well.

There's also thing called "Under Management" as well. The reality of it is in this day and age our lives as sportsmen and women are now so intertwined into the lives of our Fish and Wildlife, it could be argued that there are several instances where their survival now depends on our management and stewardship. Research the Rondeau Provincial Park Deer Populations if you would like a perfect example of that (No predators + no hunting = over population = decimation of food sources in ecologically sensitive area).

Take away our rights, you remove the funding to research and manage. And this will achieve nothing for or the greenies who are trying to take our rights away because we are in many ways codependent on each other (man & fish/wildlife). It starts small, but it will spread if we allow this kind of management to be the precedent that is set. PROPPER Science based Management should be the only option, ever. Sorry for my long post. Rant over!

[thedude]

I still think the point of this whole thing isn't the research that is (or is not) currently available - its that a decision of no-action was made without officially providing the scientific reason for that outcome.

The NRC DID NOT decree "thou shalt not CDR/Keep bass before the last saturday in may because <insert study(s), references, rationale here>".  They just gathered some opinions and said its a non-issue.

As a state agency, the NRC should at all times be providing us with the maximum amount of opportunity. They are not within their right to withhold resources that belong to every citizen without reason - and that reason can and only should be conservation based and scientifically supported. They should be the ones that expressly justify with good data any restrictions, period.

If the data is not conclusive enough, they must seek to provide it.
If the data is already conclusive, then we the people must accept the restrictions whether they are for or against our personal desires.

The debate on which studies say what or the anecdotal information we have as anglers (or friends of anglers) is important to the discussion, but if its not being considered in an objective way by the decision makers, then what is the real point here?

The non-action of the NRC is not acceptable in this case. There has been plenty of information surfaced to merit reasonable debate on the topic. That debate was effectively silenced because of opinion and politics. Had the NRC provided concrete rationale, that rationale could then be challenged through further and more specific studies. Had the NRC acknowledged that the information available was insufficient - that should also merit further studies on their part to provide the missing pieces. Instead we just got a "shut up and leave us alone already".

we don't need to bicker amongst ourselves over who's study is most pertinent to our waters - we need to objectively say that if no one can agree that any one study provides us with sufficient information, then we should proactively assemble one that does and meets the demands of all stake holders.  That is the only conclusive way to put this issue to bed.

So where is that process in all of this? its just government treating us like children per usual.

[thedude]

Dan, I hope you are right.  I really hope that we can fish for bass at anytime and as long as we release them they will find way back to the nest site and have successful broods.  I really hope that tournaments or other forms of angling pressure during the spawn cannot have an impact on bass populations in a negative manner.  I hope you are right.

As someone with a degree in this field that devoted much time to this exact area of study, I have come to question the wisdom of your view.  Originally, I would have supported your stance, but my understanding of bass behavior and ecology currently does not let me support that stance anymore.  This is not from reading a one-sided collection of articles, but from readying everything and talking first hand with leading researchers in the field.  Who knows, maybe I will find more information that will allow me to change my mind again.

i didn't want to get into the weeds on this, but you do realize that for at least 75% of the state (if not more) opening weekend is typically on or even just before the spawn of most lakes in michigan? Perhaps not on some of the smaller lakes, but around grand rapids, our memorial weekend tournaments are won on bed fish as are many of the tournaments that go into the first week of june. Push those dates further into the season as you go north.

While i do believe removing a fish from its bed or guarding fry is detrimental in the ways you stated - to that specific fish/nest - its affects on the fishery as a whole should be widely evident since this activity has been occurring for decades now, yet our fisheries are not suffering in that way.

[djkimmel]

Dan, I hope you are right.  I really hope that we can fish for bass at anytime and as long as we release them they will find way back to the nest site and have successful broods.  I really hope that tournaments or other forms of angling pressure during the spawn cannot have an impact on bass populations in a negative manner.  I hope you are right.

As someone with a degree in this field that devoted much time to this exact area of study, I have come to question the wisdom of your view.  Originally, I would have supported your stance, but my understanding of bass behavior and ecology currently does not let me support that stance anymore.  This is not from reading a one-sided collection of articles, but from readying everything and talking first hand with leading researchers in the field.  Who knows, maybe I will find more information that will allow me to change my mind again.

Despite your vague claims to expertise and training Spinnerbation and thedude show much better grasp of the common sense alone of the issue, and better understanding of factors that make a real difference on this issue when it comes to sound science.

I still think you are a Phillip/old-Ridgway disciple of the idea Ridgway has failed to prove in almost 30 years what is accepted by most others - that there is no direct correlation between fishing during the spawn (or any other season) and bass recruitment. Add to that Phillip trying to prove that CIR fishing is more damaging then we think and you fit right in with them, and no one else. Small company.

[djkimmel]

spinnerbation and thedude, you hit some big nails right on the head. People have been inadvertently and purposefully bass fishing the entire prespawn and bass spawn in Michigan for over 40 YEARS with no evidence of any correlation to damaging negative harm to bass populations.

I've seen bass being caught on St. Clair in April and May since the early 1980s at least and am told it goes back longer than that - people catching them as byproducts and people purposefully fishing for them illegally at first and now CIR legal. Decades of experience with no evidence it has correlated to damaging negative harm to the bass populations. The local biologists there tell me they see no evidence at all of the fishing harming the bass populations in all these decades.

The MDNR admits readily now that 70% of the statewide bass spawn has been fished legally during the HARVEST season since 1970. Where is the harm in 46 seasons of bass fishing the majority of the bass spawn under the harvest season especially the 'sensitive' Northern Michigan fisheries...?? It's just not there. That is just one of the reasons the MDNR will not allocate resources to ANOTHER study of this issue.

It's up to us to push the issue through the NRC that we want the opportunity, there is no evidence that we can't have the opportunity and there is plenty of evidence that fishing under the past 40+ years of bass fishing conditions in Michigan on the bass spawn has not harmed the bass population. Adding a small percentage of the spawn and prespawn to CDR fishing will not drastically change this because bass are prolific spawners able to more years than not, recruit enough new bass into the population despite even having harvest as an option during the bass spawn.